Of course they don’t!
They prefer to entangle everybody in a debate about ‘The science’, because that means we take our eyes off the ball of the real political consequences, some of which are already taking place.

When someone predicts the end of the world as a result of supernatural causes, people mock him as a religious nutcase. But if he predicts the end of the world as a result of natural causes, people applaud him as a scientist. And the difference is … ? Well, the religious person tries to “save” as many people as he can, while the “scientist” contends that we need to reduce the population in order to “save” the world. All things considered, the religious wacko seems less dangerous to society.

This is an important piece of evidence because predicts environmental calamity without pointing to a mechanism by which that calamity is supposed to come about. In 1982, the dangerous man-made global warming theory had not yet coalesced. But belief in environmental apocalypse was already quite mainstream. AGW theory is an artificially manufactured solution to a non-empirical question.

Current “consensus” AGW theory is, basically, an effort to scientifically buttress beliefs about nature and man’s impact on the planet that were already well established. Until this is widely understood (and corrected), I think climate science will resemble–both literally and metaphorically–Copernican astronomy in the late 16th and early 17th century. Literally, in that scientists have wrongly put CO2 in the center of their paradigm, creating confusion that has to be dealt with by resort to odd sub-theories (like epicycles). Metaphorically, in that the effort to preserve an existing paradigm has taken on the tone of a religious cause.